22-06-2016, 04:12 PM
Tiquesusa,
Over the years, I've noticed an interesting phenomenon in this field of endeavour - a majority of those involved cannot bear to treat this manuscript, or even to see it treated, as any other manuscript might be.
For example, the usual thing would be to begin by having an experienced person (or three) comment on the vellum and binding. This is a perfectly normal and routine aspect of manuscript studies, the day-to-day business of appraisers, auctioneers and keepers of the larger manuscript collections. It should have been done a century ago. (Well, actually it was, but the amateurs didn't like the professionals' conclusions - which is that the whole looked appropriate for something made in Englland or the southern Mediterranean, late thirteenth century)
More recently, instead of asking another professional opinion on the manuscript -as -manuscript, the exteme step was taken of using the destructive radiocarbon dating dating method. But that still didn't tell us anything about the date of what is in the text or imagery, nor which part of the world it had been made - something a qualified appraiser could have done instead.
After that, a manuscript usually (in the normal way) would get a palaeographic assessment of the handwriting. This still hasn't been done by any qualified persons willing to write a formal opinion, only by persons connected to 'Voynicheros' having a vested interest in hearing only such ideas as might support a pet theory.
Because the imagery in this manuscript is problematic for most people, it is also a good idea to get the opinion of someone qualified to explain the pictures, set them in their historical and social setting, and offer comparative imagery and background historical notes.
Apart from the palaeographic assessment, other specialists including linguists might be called in when the language is problematic. Lately we've had Anna May Smith and Professor Stephen Bax offering their time and professional expertise.
Unfortunately, and especially since about 2000, as far as I've seen, enthusiastic amateurs tend to ignore the work of specialists if they have other ideas, themselves, about how the manuscript should go. Specialists then tend to be ignored, and or to leave in disgust.
To any newcomer my advice is always: assume you know nothing.
Be dubious about ALL other claims to know very much.
Study the manuscript.
Study the manuscript.
learn...
palaeography, codicology, history, the materials of pigments... and anything else you need as reasonable equipment before you form any opinions at all.
the Voynich manuscript, as a manuscript, is not unique.
It is just one of several thousands of fifteenth century manuscripts in existence.
A good appraiser can usually tell you within less than a week where and when a manuscript was made. After a century, some people are still treating that basic issue of provenance as though it were something decided by popular vote!
Hope the above hasn't discouraged you! - welcome to the Voynich world.
Over the years, I've noticed an interesting phenomenon in this field of endeavour - a majority of those involved cannot bear to treat this manuscript, or even to see it treated, as any other manuscript might be.
For example, the usual thing would be to begin by having an experienced person (or three) comment on the vellum and binding. This is a perfectly normal and routine aspect of manuscript studies, the day-to-day business of appraisers, auctioneers and keepers of the larger manuscript collections. It should have been done a century ago. (Well, actually it was, but the amateurs didn't like the professionals' conclusions - which is that the whole looked appropriate for something made in Englland or the southern Mediterranean, late thirteenth century)
More recently, instead of asking another professional opinion on the manuscript -as -manuscript, the exteme step was taken of using the destructive radiocarbon dating dating method. But that still didn't tell us anything about the date of what is in the text or imagery, nor which part of the world it had been made - something a qualified appraiser could have done instead.
After that, a manuscript usually (in the normal way) would get a palaeographic assessment of the handwriting. This still hasn't been done by any qualified persons willing to write a formal opinion, only by persons connected to 'Voynicheros' having a vested interest in hearing only such ideas as might support a pet theory.
Because the imagery in this manuscript is problematic for most people, it is also a good idea to get the opinion of someone qualified to explain the pictures, set them in their historical and social setting, and offer comparative imagery and background historical notes.
Apart from the palaeographic assessment, other specialists including linguists might be called in when the language is problematic. Lately we've had Anna May Smith and Professor Stephen Bax offering their time and professional expertise.
Unfortunately, and especially since about 2000, as far as I've seen, enthusiastic amateurs tend to ignore the work of specialists if they have other ideas, themselves, about how the manuscript should go. Specialists then tend to be ignored, and or to leave in disgust.
To any newcomer my advice is always: assume you know nothing.
Be dubious about ALL other claims to know very much.
Study the manuscript.
Study the manuscript.
learn...
palaeography, codicology, history, the materials of pigments... and anything else you need as reasonable equipment before you form any opinions at all.
the Voynich manuscript, as a manuscript, is not unique.
It is just one of several thousands of fifteenth century manuscripts in existence.
A good appraiser can usually tell you within less than a week where and when a manuscript was made. After a century, some people are still treating that basic issue of provenance as though it were something decided by popular vote!
Hope the above hasn't discouraged you! - welcome to the Voynich world.
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)